1. Comment #112511 by Storeo on January 17, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Oh dear,

'Stein has written publicly to denounce the theory of evolution ("Darwinism," as he terms it), declaring it to be "a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies," "the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism," and the inspiration for the Holocaust.'

Its interesting that a former-lawyer has the confidence to speak out about uprooting one of cornerstones of modern biology despite not having any qualifications in this field of study. How does America keep producing these kinds of people?

Other Comments by Storeo

2. Comment #112513 by Mishakal on January 17, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Just because Ben Stein is an expert in Economics does NOT give him the ability to assault the single most important foundation of Biological Science.

I've lost all respect for him!

Other Comments by Mishakal

3. Comment #112520 by AshtonBlack on January 17, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Completely hatstand....

If this is even released outside of the US I'd be suprised.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

4. Comment #112522 by jimbob on January 17, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Since when is evolution an "ideology?"

Other Comments by jimbob

5. Comment #112526 by Chrono_Tata on January 17, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Not Muslim, or Jewish schools?

At least here's an intelligent designerist who doesn't even try to hide the fact that they are simply trying to put religion... make that Christianity, in science classes.

Other Comments by Chrono_Tata

6. Comment #112527 by annabanana on January 17, 2008 at 12:31 pm

These people are nothing but dishonest. First, they misrepresent what the film's intention is, now this. It's pathetic that they have to be so dishonest and use bribery to promote their film.

Other Comments by annabanana

7. Comment #112528 by al-rawandi on January 17, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Mishakal,


There are those that would question his economic theories.


Storeo,

How does America keep producing these kinds of people?

As an American I can only guess it is due to the habit of people copulating next to a running microwave. I think this does something to the offspring.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

8. Comment #112530 by Glen Davidson on January 17, 2008 at 12:33 pm

More Stein nonsense:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200801/NAT20080117a.html

I made some comments on other blogs, which I'll repeat here:

The most striking bit from Stein was this one:

[Stein says]
I think we say it can respond to changes in the world around them and that neo-Darwinians say it can only do that by random chance - it only happens by random chance. We say the cell may have the possibility of doing itself in an intelligent way that there may be some intelligence in the cell itself so that's probably a big difference between the two of us. We, on this side, think at least there's a possibility. We believe there's some possibility the cell could have an intelligence of its own.

[Emphases added]

Now compare this to his accusation against real scientists:

[Stein]
and the Darwinists have no theory whatsoever about the origin of life, none whatsoever, except the most hazy, the kind of preposterous, New Age hypothesis.

Yeah, sorry that we didn't think about pre-cells or chemicals having some kind of intelligence. That would be real science.

Not to mention that he has no clue about the speculations and experiments of the abiogenesis researchers.

Then there's this doltish claim:

[Stein]
Science should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself.

After that he projects that we're trying to rationalize, when he can't begin to support ID or to come up with any meaningful criticisms of "Darwinism".

A bit of irony:

Well, I would say it's creationism by someone. For me, I've always believed that there was a God. I've always believed that God created the heavens and earth - so, for me it's not a huge leap from there to intelligent design

Why no, it's just not that big a leap after all. Sorry that I said it was (or did I?).

Here's the guy "questioning" Stein:

[Cybercast News Service:]
There is a segment in the film, where it's made clear that intelligent design can open up new areas of inquiry that could improve the human condition. One involves a neurosurgeon, Michael Egnor, and another scientist, Jon Wells, who indicate that given how the cells are put together, with eye toward intelligent design, and with the idea that animal cells have tiny turbines - or if viewed as tiny turbines - he was able to formulate a theory that said in the event these things malfunction and don't properly shut down and could break apart, this is the first step on the way to cancer.

There you are Egnor, who's as clueless as a mole watching a shuttle launch (at least in this subject), and Jon Wells with his tired turbine BS, which was neither really predicated upon ID, nor did it turn out to be correct. Apparently it's in the movie, though, at least so far. Stein's actually more sensible about this bit than the interviewer is:

[Stein]
And I was just overwhelmed by the fact, at least as I am told, that Darwinists have never observed natural species being originated ... There's not even a clear definition of what a species is

You could probably overwhelm this ignoramus with the fact that a 10 km. asteroid has never been seen to hit earth and cause the devastation that "new age" scientists say would occur, and that stars have never been seen forming.

And of course the prediction of MET that species would not be a clear and simple category, due to evolution, becomes in this creationist's mind an argument against scientists.

Seems, too, that we've progressed from being Nazis to being Marxists:

[Stein]
I think there is this kind of Marxist establishment in this country that has been overthrown in other countries, but not overthrown here. There is a very powerful Marxist establishment within the intelligentsia that does not allow questioning of its premises.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

9. Comment #112534 by gtcc on January 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

I would have thought this news item would appear on RD website:
"Pope cancels trip to Rome university after protests"
SEE HERE:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-01-16-pope-visit_N.htm

Other Comments by gtcc

10. Comment #112535 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

As an American I can only guess it is due to the habit of people copulating next to a running microwave.

I never cease to marvel at just how much I learn on this website ;-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

11. Comment #112546 by AshtonBlack on January 17, 2008 at 12:47 pm

The thing is...

The "reach" for this kind of shenanigans is surely limited to "Christian Schools?

I'd hope there'd be an uproar if this was adopted at anything approaching a public/state school?

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

12. Comment #112549 by al-rawandi on January 17, 2008 at 12:54 pm

AshtonBlack,


Be Stein is Jewish. But he taught at Pepperdine and his wife is a Christian.


Paula,


I am full of good facts.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

13. Comment #112550 by pdiff on January 17, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Hmmmm .... So all we have to do is stand outside the theater, collect ticket stubs from people coming out, pool our collections, and claim our money! Would make a nice donation for the RDF! :-)

Pdiff

Other Comments by pdiff

14. Comment #112554 by Prankster on January 17, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Stein.....the result of cousins marrying and breeding surely?

Priceless -hasn't got a grasp on the subject at all but to discredit it he actually attempts to BRIBE children and schools in order to get his "meisterwerk" seen.....what a turd eh?

Other Comments by Prankster

15. Comment #112555 by annabanana on January 17, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Ashton,

Yes, I think this only applies to private schools. If this occurred in public schools, I'm sure it would go to court. There'd have to be at least one intelligent parent that wouldn't have it. I think it would probably also be unconstitutional.

Other Comments by annabanana

16. Comment #112556 by AshtonBlack on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Anna,

Phew :)

Hmm... . I wonder what the ratio is in the American Education System of Private/Faith etc to Public schools.? (runs off to Google)



edit: "10 percent of the total elementary and secondary enrolment in the United States in 2003-2004."
"Of that 10% (28000 approx) only 29% (6800 approx) are counted as non-sectarian."
Source:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006319

Still 10% that's quite a large target to go for.

(However, I'm hopeful that most science teachers in these establishments would see through this crock.)


Other Comments by AshtonBlack

17. Comment #112557 by gyokusai on January 17, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Pathetic.

Then again: as far as I can guess, it would not be considered legal for public schools to go for something like Stein's Slime Money, but for Christian schools, sure, no problem. Which says a lot about nurturing Christian madrasahs in one's country! And wasn't the English government also promoting faith-based schools full throttle, recently?

All things considered, pathetic as it may be, it still spells d-o-o-m for science education.

°_°J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

18. Comment #112558 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:08 pm

and the Darwinists have no theory whatsoever about the origin of life, none whatsoever, except the most hazy, the kind of preposterous, New Age hypothesis

You know, he's got a point. Believing that God took a handful of dust and breathed life into it is WAY more reasonable than just saying "We don't know yet". Honestly - these scientists really should get their act together.

By the way, why don't we make more of the fact that God clearly wasn't thinking straight when he created humans? Chapter 1 of Genesis suggests he created male and female at the same time, but chapter 2 makes it clear that that the creation of Eve was an afterthought, only occurring to God AFTER Adam had learned all the names of the rivers and the plants, and had named the animals. This rather steep learning curve must have taken Adam some time to conquer, so it's very unlikely to have all happened on his very first day of existence. Adam was created on the 6th day, God rested on the 7th day - which can only mean that Eve wasn't created until AFTER the 6 days in which God allegedly created EVERYTHING.

Wasn't it a pretty fundamental oversight on God's part to forget to create female humans until all the rest of his design work was finished? Can it be that no one had told him the facts of life?

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

19. Comment #112559 by room101 on January 17, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Hmmm..maybe Stein is worried that no one is going to want to see this film, and this is an attempt to put rear-ends in the seats. I can't really see why the devoted would rush to see it anyway - if you believe, you believe.

Clearly he's worried that it might go straight to video.

Other Comments by room101

20. Comment #112560 by Glen Davidson on January 17, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I suppose I ought to point out that the title is wrong. The children are not being bribed, the schools are being bribed to make the kids go (sure, they might not absolutely have to go, but the "good students" would).

I wish it were as simple as them giving out free tickets, or pay to fill the seats. That would be gaming the system, all right, but at least it wouldn't be such a devious tactic. As it is, the schools get the money, and the kids are screwed twice, once by having to buy the ticket, and a second time by having to listen to such dreck.

Dr. Wes Elsberry tells it like it is, here:

http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/01/16/flunked-not-expelled-gaming-the-movie-ratings/

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

21. Comment #112561 by ianmkz on January 17, 2008 at 1:13 pm

By the way, why don't we make more of the fact that God clearly wasn't thinking straight when he created humans?

That's like asking why it took Him 6 days to create the world, but 190 days to destroy it. (Noah - 40 days of rain and 150 days for the waters to abate)

Other Comments by ianmkz

22. Comment #112564 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Does Stein think that he has expelled Darwin from science? Whilst modern economists have ideas that equate with those of the theologians, full of mysticism, lacking accurate predictions, and of little use to humanity, they serve the purpose of not letting the dog see the rabbit.

Keep people's mind confused, and they will put up with all kinds of poison, especially if they think the real show is in the next life.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

23. Comment #112566 by notsobad on January 17, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Religious dogma at work. Either that or I can't think what else than dogma could turn you into a zombie who wants to do everything possible to harm science and reason.

Other Comments by notsobad

24. Comment #112567 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Paula, having a quick gander over Genesis (http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/genesis_1.html) I see he made man and wman on the 6th day and told them to be fruitful etc. 7th day he tidied heaven and Earth...but here's a good one - he forgot about rain! D'Oh!!

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Of course, the italicised buit is odd because, as you say, earlier we had 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Must've meant farmers or something....
Mind you, the next time someone says we're acting like gods with our science, we can come back with

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Us? One of us?? The royal we?
Man, one can have fun with the Bible!
Anyway, back to your point - men and women were created on the 6th day, Adam was created after the 7 days along with rain and Eve came about way afterwards. And God talks of himself in the plural....
How is it no one picks up on these for thousands of years?

Other Comments by Goldy

25. Comment #112569 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm

You know, he's got a point. Believing that God took a handful of dust and breathed life into it is WAY more reasonable than just saying "We don't know yet"

Unfortunately, from the biblical point of view, the elements in the human body are somewhat different from those found in the Earth's crust.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

26. Comment #112571 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 1:35 pm

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Was Jesus the only begotten son of God? Hmmm, methinks something should be explained here ;-)
Edit - sorry, back to topic. Only at chapter 6 adn so many inconsistencies. And yet people are willing to base their whole lives on this...and impose their views on others! Like this Stein bloke..

Other Comments by Goldy

27. Comment #112572 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Goldy: Paula, having a quick gander over Genesis (http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/genesis_1.html) I see he made man and wman on the 6th day and told them to be fruitful etc

Yes, chapter 1 has it ok. But chapter 2 goes into the creation of man in more detail and from there it's clear that there must have been at least a few days' delay between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. And, given that Adam didn't arrive until day 6, that puts Eve outside the "creation timeframe".

Great, isn't it? 2 chapters in, and already the bible has contradicted itself! :-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

28. Comment #112573 by AllanW on January 17, 2008 at 1:37 pm

gtcc has already showed a canny school administrator how to make money for their school. Spend a weekend outside the cinema, collect stubs, hand-in and collect cash. No propoganda necessary to be endured.

And if enough schools try to pull the scam then the producers either lose a lot of money or we get a nice story about how they welched on the deal :)

Go to it School Administrators of America! Do your duty!

Other Comments by AllanW

29. Comment #112574 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Goldy: And God talks of himself in the plural....

Well, there are three of him!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

30. Comment #112576 by al-rawandi on January 17, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Goldy,


Isn't Stein Jewish? Or did he convert?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

31. Comment #112577 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Well, there are three of him!

Hmmm, but only 2 can be shagging the daughters of men bacasue the other one had to wait until historical times to make an appearance...unless...hmmmm. Well, they're all naughty men! ;-)

And, given that Adam didn't arrive until day 6

KJV puts Adam arriving after day 7 - about the same time God realised the plants will all die becasue he forgot to make it rain :-). Men and women were made on day 6, but not Adam. Curioser and curioser..

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #112580 by AshtonBlack on January 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

gtcc has already showed a canny school administrator how to make money for their school. Spend a weekend outside the cinema, collect stubs, hand-in and collect cash. No propoganda necessary to be endured.

And if enough schools try to pull the scam then the producers either lose a lot of money or we get a nice story about how they welched on the deal :)

Go to it School Administrators of America! Do your duty!

From the idiot's website FAQ:

"Q: Will all schools who submit their ticket stubs be given a donation?


A: … Funds for the Expelled Challenge will only be distributed to those who register through the Expelled Challenge website … on a first come, first served basis in the order in which they were registered. Bottom line, funds are limited* – register as soon as you can! "

It, of course, dosn't say how limited.....

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

33. Comment #112581 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 1:45 pm

For further info about the relative abundance of elements in the Earth's crust and life see

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/elabund.html

Other Comments by D'Arcy

34. Comment #112582 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Isn't Stein Jewish? Or did he convert?

Beats me, I wouldn't know him from a block of cheese. Either way, this is the creation story he'd follow regardless of branch of Abrahamic religion.

Other Comments by Goldy

35. Comment #112585 by Beteo on January 17, 2008 at 1:51 pm

As usual... they show their ignorance in the first paragraph.

This is an extremely important project for those of us who believe our world was designed by a creator and not an act of random chance.

And as usual.. its the 'random chance' bit that they just can't seem to get their heads around.

Other Comments by Beteo

36. Comment #112587 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Does anyone know of a SINGLE serious scientist who believes in creationism without having had a prior religious commitment to the idea? In other words, who has arrived at their religion through their science, rather than the other way round?

It just strikes me as so entirely barking mad to believe that anyone could assess the evidence with an open mind and conclude on the basis of that evidence that everything was created by a super-intelligence in the space of 6 days.

There are those who argue that science and religion are not incompatible: but if religion makes you unable to assess the evidence for what it is, as opposed to what your beliefs require it to be, then the incompatibility is undeniable.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

37. Comment #112589 by Steve Zara on January 17, 2008 at 1:56 pm

And I was just overwhelmed by the fact, at least as I am told, that Darwinists have never observed natural species being originated ...

Actually, that may be true. As far as I know the only clear and complete formation of a true species (as against the process partly complete) that has been observed in Nature was when the marsh grass Spartina anglica arose in Europe. This was during the end of the 19th century. So, it is quite possible that, at the time, no member of the then small Darwinist clique was there to observe it personally. But then, no Intelligent Design believer was around to watch God come down and fiddle with that plant's genome....

... There's not even a clear definition of what a species is

There is no clear definition of what intelligence is. It ends up having all kinds of strange meanings, as in "Intelligent" Design.

and the Darwinists have no theory whatsoever about the origin of life, none whatsoever, except the most hazy, the kind of preposterous, New Age hypothesis

Strange. I had never thought of iron/sulphur chemistry (one of the best current ideas of abiogenesis) as particularly preposterous or New Age. But it does involve pyrite crystals, and I guess crystals are kind of New Agey.

There are those who argue that science and religion are not incompatible: but if religion makes you unable to assess the evidence for what it is, as opposed to what your beliefs require it to be, then the incompatibility is undeniable.

Not all religion is incompatible. The Dalia Lama has said that if Quantum Mechanics shows that the Buddhist principle of determinism is wrong, so be it, science has to be accepted. It does seem to be the Abrahamic religions that have a particular problem with the idea of scientific evidence, that require mental gymnastics.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #112591 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 2:06 pm

but if religion makes you unable to assess the evidence for what it is, as opposed to what your beliefs require it to be, then the incompatibility is undeniable.

Given their strong belief in the efficacy of what you have shown to be a very inconsistent book, I guess having things explained logically, with some evidence, is anathema to them :-).
Maybe the mental gymnastics has all been exhausted by trying to reconcile their belief with their book...

Other Comments by Goldy

39. Comment #112592 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Steve: It does seem to be the Abrahamic religions that have a particular problem with the idea of scientific evidence, that require mental gymnastics.

Fair comment. I have a tendency to mean "Abrahamic religion" when I refer to "religion", since it's the only kind I'm really familiar with, and the only kind that exercises any real influence in Western society. Also, I find that this slightly lazy habit of mine irritates the pants off a pagan who posts on a different site that I frequent - which makes it all worthwhile ;-)))

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

40. Comment #112599 by Steve Zara on January 17, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Fair comment.

No criticism intended, as you did qualify what you said ("if religion makes you unable...").

I just thought it would be interesting for some to point out that there are religious belief systems that are quite prepared to step aside as science makes progress, and don't share the "we know best" arrogance of, say, Christianity.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #112600 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Yeah, but Steve, you know what our mate ADH would say about that ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

42. Comment #112601 by Steve Zara on January 17, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Yeah, but Steve, you know what our mate ADH would say about that ;-)

While the cat's away...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #112602 by al-rawandi on January 17, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Steve,


The Baha'is have an interesting view on science. They view science and religion as two wings of the same bird.

They have a precarious history (prophet recanting a couple of times etc...) but interesting.

But alas they are still anti-homosexual among a few other things.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

44. Comment #112603 by Kergillian on January 17, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Bueller...

Bueller...

Bueller...

Other Comments by Kergillian

45. Comment #112607 by ebugogo on January 17, 2008 at 2:28 pm

As a previous person posted, I wouldn't know Ben Stein from a block of cheese,but,I honestly thought this was a joke.

Other Comments by ebugogo

46. Comment #112608 by ianmkz on January 17, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I always kinda liked Ben Stein. Reminded me of Clement Freud. Oh well... sniff.

Other Comments by ianmkz

47. Comment #112611 by Steve Zara on January 17, 2008 at 2:32 pm

The Baha'is have an interesting view on science. They view science and religion as two wings of the same bird

Thanks for that - it is really interesting. I had never heard of that religion before.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #112612 by Goldy on January 17, 2008 at 2:34 pm

We get tehm on telly here in NZ
http://www.bahai.org.nz/resources.html

Other Comments by Goldy

49. Comment #112614 by al-rawandi on January 17, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Steve,

Quick overview:

Began in Iran as an offshoot of the Hurufi and Nuqtavi movements. Founded by Ali Muhammad Shirazi. They began as Babi's (followers of the Bab) they were persecuted under the Qajar dynasty (19th Century).

After expulsion from Iran, they set up shop in Cypress and Aqqa (Acre, Israel). They have sent people to all parts of the globe to spread the faith. They believe in progressive revelation, that revelation is not final and immutable but that it continues to be revised by God.

They are usually really nice and reasonable. They are actively persecuted in Iran today.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

50. Comment #112615 by al-rawandi on January 17, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Goldy,


I took a Baha'i course in college. I also wrote a couple papers on them for my Islam and Iran courses.

Notice the recurrence of the number 19 in their ideology. Very curious.

But back to the point, Ben Stein is an ass clown.

Other Comments by al-rawandi